Place a paper trade

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: dry_run defaults to true (no real execution), paper trading affects leaderboard but not real funds, prices are delayed 15 minutes, and trade validation occurs on live runs. No contradictions exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a clear opening sentence and a bulleted 'IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTES' section for emphasis. While lengthy, it avoids redundancy and each point provides distinct value for a complex tool. Minor trimming could improve conciseness, but it remains well-organized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (trading, multi-type parameters, safety risks), the description covers all necessary aspects: dry_run flow, token formats, count constraints, balance requirements, price delay, account prerequisites, and what dry_run returns. It references sibling tools appropriately and leaves no major gaps despite lacking an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description enriches understanding: sell count can be a percentage string, buy count must be numeric, token accepts symbols/pairs/names, and dry_run defaults to true. This adds practical nuance beyond schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'Place a paper-trading buy or sell on the ChartObserver platform for the configured user,' clearly stating the verb (place) and resource (paper trade). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_balance, get_leaderboard) by focusing on trade execution, and the title 'Place a paper trade' aligns perfectly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit instructions: always start with dry_run=true, present results for confirmation before setting dry_run=false. It also specifies when not to use (e.g., for non-crypto assets), alternative references (list_supported_tokens for valid identifiers), and operational constraints (price delays, account requirements).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.